Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 10:49:06 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: The War on Kids Continued: Part I This is a reprint summary of an earlier series Re: America's war on kids This "America's war on kids" debate is a good example of confusing cause with effect, symptom with problem. To some, the problem is that neither no- skill jobs nor AFDC pay enough for single women to raise their children. The large number of children living in poverty/and or neglected is seen by some as a "problem" to be treated with larger AFDC payments. Children in poverty and/or neglected in America is not a problem but a symptom: the problem is that women, primarily single women, bear children that they cannot afford, and try to raise them without a father. The result is a generation of kids described in the earlier "Orphanages" thread as "totally screwed up". This is quite accurate and maybe even understated. But is it because they are poor? There are entire countries which are poorer and don't have this problem. During the Great Depression of the 1930's we didn't have this problem. Even facing the Depression and Jim Crow laws the illegitimacy rate in Black America was only 5% (about equal to the national level) until the Great Society programs started to pay single women to have babies in the 1960's. NOTE: Since I wrote this, I have seen some dispute about this number. See the reviews of "The Truly Disadvantaged" and "Up From Conservatism" and the figure with it, all in the book review section. While in Grand Bahamas last year, a local ask me "is it really true that in America the government pays single girls to have babies?" He had heard this but couldn't believe it could be true. Well, yes, I had to reply. He just shook is head. When I relayed this story to a Liberal friend, he said: No the government does not pay them TO have babies (that would be stupid). It only pays then IF they have babies. He seems to think this is a big distinction. Scott Ferguson says we shouldn't make life worse for teen single mothers by "starving them". Two points here. According to TIME, Jan 16 1995 the main form of malnutrition among the poor in America is obesity from overeating; ours must be the first society in history where there is an INVERSE correlation between wealth and body weight. And does he suggest paying single teen age girls even more to have babies? In human societies VALUES ARE TAUGHT BY PARENTS. (emphasis on the plural). And if a child doesn't have parentS? Or if the parents are too lazy/screwed to raise their kids properly? Then there is a problem. But in most cases it is lack of TWO parents with enough concern and commitment to their children to marry that is the problem. Dan Quayle was exactly right on this point (if on nothing else!) See the ATLANTIC MONTHLY, April,1993. The problem is NOT due to a mother working: a recent Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty study found that having a mother who works actually helps children to stay in school and to do well in life. (they suggest she serves as a role model to provide a positive attitude towards work). See the book SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS: On the effects of Investments in Children by Barbara Wolfe and Robert Haveman on this point. When I was learning chess I recorded a game moves and later showed it to a local Master (who could play 30 games at once and evaluate a situation at a glance). When I asked what to do in this position, his reply was: "you won't be a good player until you realize that you don't understand the problem: it is not what to DO in this position. It is how do you avoid getting INTO this position". We can hope that President Clinton will be able to see an obvious truth that the last two Presidents could not, because they were blinded by ideology. Namely: prevention is much more effective than treatment. One dollar spent on Norplant, or on funding abortion, will do more to reduce the number of children neglected and in poverty than thousands of dollars spent on AFDC. Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 12:31:32 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: The War on Kids Continued: Part II Round II: replies to the replies. POVERTY: CAUSE or RESULT? Several claim that kids are raised without fathers and are neglected because of poverty. I assume this is a reference to MATERIAL depravation rather than a "poverty of the spirit", or some such metaphoric use of the word. Richard Clark is explicit on this point. "marriage is not the answer as long as men are not allowed to earn enough to keep their families out of poverty... and make less than in the 80's." Are people poorer now than during the 1930's? I am still looking for an explanation of why, if POVERTY is the CAUSE of the steep rise of fatherless and neglected children, the problem was much less during the Great Depression? Then, the birth rate was lower, largely because people waited until they could afford kids BEFORE they had them. This was the case for both white and black. And why is this problem much less in many, even most countries that are much poorer than the US? The AVERAGE South Korean has much less in material goods, and a lower paying job than most POOR Americans. But they get married before having children and then they provide for their children. Isn't it just the reverse: 40% of kids live in poverty BECAUSE they are raised by single unskilled women and don't have fathers. Isn't it this which CAUSES them to be in poverty? Raoul Golan makes a good point that people (today and in the US) think in terms of "RELATIVE poverty". They have more than 80% of the people on earth today, and more than 90% of the people who ever lived. But that is not enough. My favorite story on this is from USA TODAY last year. They interviewed a US Marine, who had grown up in inner-city Detroit. He said that he had always been told that he was living in poverty, and he believed it until he was sent to Somalia. Then he realized for the first time that he didn't even know what poverty WAS until he got there. Is America suffering from what I call the Baseball Players Syndrome (BPS)? More on this in another post. ISN'T ONE PARENT AS GOOD AS TWO? I suggested in my earlier post that children should be raised by parentS (plural) and it is from the parents they are taught their values. "Am I implying that one parent kids have inferior values?" asked Richard Clark. I know one should try not to offend anyone, but the figures on this case are too conclusive not to point out. If the little boy in the story were to say "But the Emperor has no clothes!" today, the ending would be different. Those on the Right would say "spank him! He is trying to undermine the civil authority". But those on the Left would say "send him to sensitivity training! He is trying to embarrass the emperor, and all of us who trust in him." So I will say it: the statistics on kids raised by one parent are grim. They are a MAJORITY of the men in prison for violent crimes. They are over 80% of the juveniles in trouble with the law. The are most of the kids who drop out of school. I refer you to the Atlantic Monthly for April, 1991 and the article "Dan Quayle Was Right" by Barbara Defoe Whitehead. There is a lot of information there, but it is probably best summarized by sociologist David Popenoe who says: "Social science research is almost never conclusive. There are always methodological difficulties and stones left unturned. Yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two parent families are preferable to single-parent and stepfamilies." This is just statistical correlation, and it does not apply to any one individual case. But if it is NOT cause and effect, someone offer another explanation. And I am sorry if some are offended by these figures. INSERT HERE: But, some ask, what about Sweden and Norway? About half of the mothers there are single, and THEY don't have this problem (or at least not like as much as the US). jeb: >> But a big difference here. At least for Sweden (and I assume Norway is >> similar). >> While many mothers are not MARRIED to the father of their kids (maybe >> because of the tax laws?), they LIVE with them, and the fathers help >> raise the kids. >> Unlike the case in the US, where the father is unknown or out of the >> picture. Grinch: Exactly right, and a point seldom noted. Sweden changed it's tax and employment laws after WWII so that the legal status of being married became a lot less attractive and marriage much less popular -- but the two-parent family remained intact. Over 90% of the babies born in Sweden go home from the hospital to a two-parent family, even though only about 50% of the mothers are married. And the big majority of those two-parent families are two-income families. This very big distiction between Swedish and US "single" mothers almost always goes overlooked when people throw about "married parent" statistics. WHAT ABOUT FATHERS? Dave Botteron and another (Cindy L. ) raised the question of Welfare Fathers. There was an interesting case in Madison (even little Madison) last summer. A man was being sentenced to jail for robbery on the same day that one of his sons was being sentenced in the next courtroom (touching family scene) The reporter did a nice human interest story on it. Seems the father had 25 kids by 5 women (not married to any of them as you may have guessed- and paying nothing for any of them). Most of the kids over 18 were in various stages of trouble with the law. The legal history of the younger are not open to the public in Wisconsin. When reading of this case, most reacted with "oh, he shouldn't do that." But from a bio-sociological perspective he is doing EXACTLY the right thing: he should have as many kids as WE are willing to support. He is acting on the information he is given. Maybe WE need to change the message we are sending him. And while I certainly don't want to imply any approval for irresponsible men, keep in mind that responsibility for having children is no longer equally shared by men and women, as it was before Roe vs Wade. Now the decision ("choice") is entirely with the woman. I support that, but it does have implications. THE MARRIAGE PENALTY Brett Jon Kottman says marriage is the answer. Look on your IRS 1040 form. Two single people each get a $3,800 deduction. If they get married, they get only $6,350 between them: they lose $1,250 in deductions BECAUSE they married. And the tax they pay is exactly the same on the first $22,750 of taxable income. At higher levels their tax is on their COMBINED income which may put them in a higher bracket than either would be if single. Is there ANYONE out there who thinks this makes any sense? I can remember when tax policies actually favored marriage. Back in the days when almost all kids were raised by couples who got married first, and were not penalized because of that. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 12:39:59 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: The War on Kids Continued: Part III From: Cindy L. CL To: jim blair cc: cardin@ix.netcom.com, alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Subject: Re: America's war on kids In-Reply-To: <18542.jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 19 Feb 1995, jim blair wrote: Re: America's war on kids Round II: replies to the replies. POVERTY: CAUSE or RESULT? Several claim that kids are raised without fathers and are neglected because of poverty. I assume this is a reference to MATERIAL depravation rather than a "poverty of the spirit", or some such metaphoric use of the word. Richard Clark is explicit on this point. Uh...ever done it yourself? Had to pay the babysitter 1/3 of your income, the rent 1/3 and then you have a little left over... Meanwhile your abusive ex-husband who enjoyed beating you physically is now abusing you and the child by not paying child support and guess what? The courts don't care..they don't make him follow court orders!--CL "marriage is not the answer as long as men are not allowed to earn enough to keep their families out of poverty... and make less than in the 80's." Average wage earners do not make as much...nope they don't make much at all. Not enough for a family that's for sure.--CL Are people poorer now than during the 1930's? I am still looking for an explanation of why, if POVERTY is the CAUSE of the steep rise of fatherless and neglected children, the problem was much less during the Great Depression? Then, the birth rate was lower, largely because people waited Because our social system of the family is breaking down. Women realize they don't have to live with abusive, selfish men. Divorce is the popular answer in many other situations....without regard to the kids.--CL until they could afford kids BEFORE they had them. This was the case for both white and black. And why is this problem much less in many, even most countries that are much poorer than the US? The AVERAGE South Korean has I don't know of those countries. What about Africa and India????--CL much less in material goods, and a lower paying job than most POOR Americans. But they get married before having children and then they provide for their children. Maybe they don't have to pay a bundle for daycare.... I don't know I don't live there.--CL Isn't it just the reverse: 40% of kids live in poverty BECAUSE they are raised by single unskilled women and don't have fathers. Isn't it this which CAUSES them to be in poverty? No, why should a woman head of family not be able to make enough? Why aren't the father's contributing? You seem to believe that women want to get rid of their men. Most women I know HAD to get rid of their men. Men are unfortunatly often abusive and selfish these days. How can a woman be expected to work, clean house etc while she has an abusive mate? She knows she and the kids would be better off without the agravations.--CL Raoul Golan makes a good point that people (today and in the US) think in terms of "RELATIVE poverty". They have more than 80% of the people on earth today, and more than 90% of the people who ever lived. But that is not enough. My favorite story on this is from USA TODAY last year. They Do you suggest that you should take away the kids hot dogs and make them eat gruel like they do in 3rd world countries or what? If you question the poverty try going and living it yourself. Poverty is when you know that if you miss a few weeks of work that you could be homeless.--CL interviewed a US Marine, who had grown up in inner-city Detroit. He said that he had always been told that he was living in poverty, and he believed it until he was sent to Somalia. Then he realized for the first time that he didn't even know what poverty WAS until he got there. Is America suffering from what I call the Baseball Players Syndrome (BPS)? More on this in another post. Now you are beginning to sound like Newt Gingrich. Did you know they are trying to do away with the school lunch program? So our kids may be closer to Somalians every day.--CL ISN'T ONE PARENT AS GOOD AS TWO? I suggested in my earlier post that children should be raised by parentS (plural) and it is from the parents they are taught their values. "Am I implying that one parent kids have inferior values?" asked Richard Clark. I know one should try not to offend anyone, but the figures on this case are too conclusive not to point out. How about including a 3rd group to measure. Two parent families where the father is an abusive, non-working, male? Which kids do you think are better off? The kids in one parent families or the ones like Nicole Simpson's kids?--CL If the little boy in the story were to say "But the Emperor has no clothes!" today, the ending would be different. Those on the Right would say "spank him! He is trying to undermine the civil authority". But those on the Left would say "send him to sensitivity training! He is trying to embarrass the emperor, and all of us who trust in him." I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this story.--CL So I will say it: the statistics on kids raised by one parent are grim. They are a MAJORITY of the men in prison for violent crimes. They are over 80% of the juveniles in trouble with the law. The are most of the kids who drop out of school. Yeah and those men maybe the fathers of the families who don't have a dad.--CL This is just statistical correlation, and it does not apply to any one individual case. But if it is NOT cause and effect, someone offer another explanation. And I am sorry if some are offended by these figures. No I am offended by your ignorance. You seem to want to believe what you want regardless of the realities of the situation.--CL WHAT ABOUT FATHERS? Dave Botteron and another (Cindy L. I think) raised the question of Welfare Fathers. There was an interesting case in Madison (even little Madison) last summer. A man was being sentenced to jail for robbery on the same day that one of his sons was being sentenced in the next courtroom (touching family scene) The reporter did a nice human interest story on it. Seems the father had 25 kids by 5 women (not married to any of them as you may have guessed- and paying nothing for any of them). Most of the kids over 18 were in various stages of trouble with the law. The legal history of the younger are not open to the public in Wisconsin. When reading of this case, most reacted with "oh, he shouldn't do that." But from a bio-sociological perspective he is doing EXACTLY the right thing: he should have as many kids as WE are willing to support. He is acting on the information he is given. Maybe WE need to change the message we are sending him. Yeah that's my point exactly. Fathers aren't taking responsibility. Women, the Mother's, are left holding the bag of responsibilities. You think these women WANT to be single parents???? I don't think so. As I see it the women are taking over the responsibilities of both parents because they were socialized to do right by their kids. Women are doing the best they can. Men on the other hand are not doing what they can for their kids...they just don't care and the courts not enforcing them to pay child support is a major problem. Also why does a guy get less time for beating up his wife than if he beat up a stranger on the street?????--CL Men are not expected to act responsibly, so they don't. Women are expected to so they do.--CL And while I certainly don't want to imply any approval for irresponsible men, keep in mind that responsibility for having children is no longer equally shared by men and women, as it was before Roe vs Wade. Now the decision ("choice") is entirely with the woman. I support that, but it does have implications. Oh so since we women have Roe vs Wade raising the children alone is our punishment? You seem to think that carrying a baby to term is shared equally. Well it isn't and you had better just face up to that fact. BIOLOGICALLY WOMEN ARE THE BEARERS OF CHILDREN. Saying that women deserve to raise children alone is ridiculous and mean to the children. You still seem to believe that men should have no responsibility to society.--CL THE MARRIAGE PENALTY Brett Jon Kottman says marriage is the answer. Look on your IRS 1040 form. Two single people each get a $3,800 deduction. If they get married, they get only $6,350 between them: they lose $1,250 in deductions BECAUSE they married. And the tax they pay is exactly the same on the first $22,750 of taxable income. At higher levels their tax is on their COMBINED income which may put them in a higher bracket than either would be if single. Is there ANYONE out there who thinks this makes any sense? I can remember when tax policies actually favored marriage. Back in the days when almost all kids were raised by couples who got married first, and were not penalized because of that.! Oh and the divorce laws favor one party. The lawyers. Marriage is no longer an alternative for many.--CL > I think as a whole you seem to have distanced yourself from the realities of the situation kids are in. You can talk as if they really aren't in trouble etc. But it won't change the facts. We as a society are raising a nice little bunch of sociopaths. (One day they may get you. What will you say then? "Oh they were just born bad we need to lock them away forever?" Aren't we all locked behind our doors today to guard us from the roving lunatics? Only someone with no caring person in their past and no hope for the future would act that way. Our societies lack of caring for young people is coming to haunt us all in a major way. Cindy Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 12:50:46 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: The War on Kids Continues Part IV Subject: war on kids, & possible child support enforcment Cindy' I may compose a more complete reply to your last reply when/if I have time. You misunderstand my point: it is NOT that I think there is no problem: quite the opposite. I think the current policy (for the past 30 years) of paying single girls to drop out of school and have babies IS "raising a nice bunch of sociopaths" and this "lack of caring for young people is coming to haunt us in a major way" as you say. Besides which it, it is costing us billions of dollars to create this disaster! The question is what to do about it. You do make a good point: while NEVER MARRIED mothers are responsible for their children, women who were married when their kids were born, but are since divorced, have every right to expect that the ex-husband will honor his obligation to provide child support. There is an obvious practical problem in the current situation where all the courts can threaten him with is jail or fines if he does not send the support. If in jail he can't work, and the only threat to enforce the fine is also jail. What to do? Is there another form of punishment which would NOT interfere with his ability to work? Below is a letter to a local newspaper which may suggest an answer. EDITOR TCT: 4/12/94 Your editorial "Caning is torture" is a combination of Eurocentric elitism and ignorance of the US penal system. Just consider objectively which punishment is more "cruel", ie which would YOU rather endure: one whack with a cane or one year in Attica or Pelican Bay, or Rikkers Island? I think the topic is at least subject to debate. James E. Blair Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 13:04:11 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: The War on Kids Continued: Part V Subject: Re: war on kids, & possible child support enforcment In Message Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:23:20 -0400 (AST), Cindy Larason writes: On Wed, 22 Feb 1995, jim blair wrote: > You do make a good point: while NEVER MARRIED mothers > are responsible for their children, women who were married when > their kids were born, but are since divorced, have every right to > expect that the ex-husband will honor his obligation to provide > child support. JB >Now why discriminate against the unwed mothers? Do they have life any >differently than the previously wed mothers? Does this also mean you are >against sex out of wedlock? And if you are why would the woman be the >one to suffer in that instance? Why not the father too? CL I am libertarian enough to think that people should be able to live their own life and make their own decisions AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HARM OTHERS. Having sex is your own business, having children becomes other peoples business, ESPECIALLY when others are expected to provide for them. The woman should suffer because she CAUSED the problem: she alone has the "choice": she should go to jail. Why discriminate against unwed mothers? Why discriminate against rapists? Because their ACTIONS harm others and harm society. Why not punish the father? He could not choose to terminate the pregnacy. Do you think men should have EQUAL rights in that decision? And I will add here that I don't agree with some of the more libertarian critics of your post, who say the woman caused the problem, and they want nothing to do with it. The child should not suffer for the parents mistakes. The parent(s) SHOULD suffer; the kid deserves a married couple or at least an orphanage rather than the current policy of being raised by one parent and in poverty.> JB >And if you are suggesting that unwed mothers not keep their children I >think you must be either advocating abortion or adoption. I personally > Re-read my letter: YES those are exactly what I advocate. JB would do neither if faced with the situation. Would you want your child >aborted or given away if there was no mother for it? If you impregnated >a woman who told you she didn't want the child or you, wouldn't you even >be a little inclined to keep the child if she agreed to bear it for you? CL I try to imagine, but cannot. Could I ever be so self centered as to WANT a child to grow up without a mother? Would that be fair to the child? I know that I cannot be both parents that a kid needs. There is lots of evidence that children don't do well if they don't have two parents to raise them. Why would I wish that on mine? You seen aware of the problem with your earlier reference to a generation of little sociopaths. Would I want to conribute to that for my own shelfish reasons? Another comment here. I was lucky in this. When I came to Wisconsin as a student 37 years ago, I found THE most wonderful and beautiful woman, under a tree by the lake. I was able to get her to marry me. So my 2 kids had a fine mother and I hope an adequate father. Had my wife died when the kids were young, my first priority would have been to find another mother for them. I think a child DESERVES two parents committed to provide it. JB > >And as for caning, yes it would be effective however in this country it >is out of the question...I mean we give cable tv to jails! But maybe >more effective would be a mark on the credit rating just like other court >cases involving money could do. CL I am not an extremist on this. If your wimpy little credit mark thing works, fine. But in cases where it fails, would you support caning? I don't think we can dismiss caning just because it would be effective. Must this country insist on trying ONLY more of what has failed in the past?> JB >Cindy Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 13:18:55 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: The War on Kids Continued: Part VI America's War on Kids: Round 6 "The Mother of All Battles" CL = Cindy L. JB= Jim Blair CL: Have you ever had to pay the babysitter 1/3 of your income? DAY CARE COST JB: No, I don't think so. I did have 2 kids in daycare when my wife and I both worked. This was 25-30 years ago, but I don't remember it being that expensive. But this does raise a question that I find puzzling. If child care is that expensive, why don't more mothers DO it rather than PAY FOR it? When our kids needed daycare, is was usually done by mothers in the neighborhood who had kids of their own. They found it little extra effort to take care of 3 or 4 more. If your figures are accurate, you would be EVEN if instead of working outside the home, you took in 2 kids to care for along with yours. If you had 3 or more customers, you would be making MORE than by a more conventional job. The ones who do it often find it better for their own kids because they have others to play with. From what I hear, daycare is not a high paying business, but as I say, I don't know. Anyway, that is how the market is supposed to work: when it becomes more profitable to DO something than to PAY OTHERS to do it, more people should make the shift from customer to provider. It should be easy here since there is little capital investment Most daycare in my area is by mothers who get extra toys and/or playground equipment- often not needed since Madison has many small parks scattered all over the place, and almost everyone lives near one. ANYONE out there have any insight on this? COMPARED TO WHAT? JB: I suggested comparison with other countries and with other times. The response seemed to be that the US today cannot be compared to ANYTHING out side of itself. There was almost a pride in not knowing anything about other countries. My point is that almost nothing means anything EXCEPT by comparison to something else. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? CL: it is "because our social system of the family is breaking down....Divorce is the popular answer in many other situations....without regard to the kids" JB: Exactly the PROBLEM. What I want is the SOLUTION. Until the problem is solved, the SYMPTOMS will get worse. CL: "why should a woman head of family not be able to make enough? (to support their children). JB: The question should be turned around. Why should anyone EXPECT that a girl who drops out of school and has 1 or 5 kids and no husband and no skills should be able to earn enough? Ours is not a hunter-gatherer society. People need some education and training to expect to earn a living just for themselves. They need even more to support others. NUTRITION in the 90's "Let them Eat Gruel!!" CL: Do you suggest you should take away the kids hot dogs and make them eat gruel...or what? JB: See my web page files on "Greens vs Beans" and "Obesity", Politics section. IS ONE PARENT AS GOOD AS TWO? People cite personal examples of children raised by a single parent who turned out fine. Yes, this happens. Some people smoke 2 or 3 packs of cigarettes per day for decades and are perfectly healthy. That does not prove that there are no adverse health effects associated with smoking. I quoted statistics to show that overall they turn out worse, and in fact are responsible for MOST of our social problems. Statistical correlations don't apply to specific cases. And I agree that they can't prove cause and effect. There could be other explanations. Someone suggest another explanation. CL: (the boys who grow up without fathers and drop out of school to cause our social problems) may be the fathers of the families who don't have a dad. JB: Exactly. The problem feeds on itself. The question is how to STOP it. CL: You think these women WANT to be single parents???? I don't think so. JB: How can a single woman who has kids she chooses to keep expect to NOT be a single parent?? In part 4 of this series, I do distinguish between a married woman who becomes a single parent and a NEVER MARRIED mother. IN CONCLUSION CL: We as a society are raising a nice little bunch of sociopaths....Our societies lack of caring for young people is coming to haunt us all in a major way. JB: I agree 100 %. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth.